Luntz’s London Lessons for Hillary Clinton

Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz has an interesting op-ed on last week’s surprising UK election in today’s Washington Post. The surprise was not that the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, won but rather their overwhelming margin of victory. Nearly every pre-election poll had the governing Tories in a dead heat with Labour and turnout – Luntz thought – was likely to be low.
Yet the Conservatives emerged with nearly 100 votes more than their loyal opposition and the percentage of voters turnout increased since the last general election in 2010.

Luntz offers three lessons from the erroneous polls. 1) How voters perceive the economy is critical. 2) Citizens ultimately do care about elections. 3) The level of trust that a candidate engenders is along with the economy paramount. Let’s examine each lesson and see if we can glean any insights into the the Presidential election coming up next year with specific reference to front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It’s the economy stupid. In many ways the British economy has mirrored ours over the past five years. As of January 21, unemployment in the UK was at 5.8% its lowest level in 6 years. Likewise, real wages are rising albeit slowly. This record was enough for the British electorate to maintain confidence in the management ability of the Tories. For Democrat Hillary Clinton, this is undeniably a good sign as the United States has benefited from 62 straight months of job growth under the Democratic Obama administration and real wages are rising here. With the numbers showing our economy moving in the right direction, Presidential voters are likely to resist a change in party.

Voters care about elections. This lesson is perhaps the least apparent of Luntz’s takeaways. The percentage of voters rose only 1% despite a hotly contested election. Still turnout at over 66% was the highest number since 1997. So – and this is where Hillary Rodham Clinton should really sit up and pay attention – what policies did the prevailing Tories champion that apparently motivated so many Britons to vote for them?

With respect to economic policy, the victorious David Cameron campaigned as a populist sometimes to the left of Labour. For example, Cameron called for an extension of the “right to buy” home ownership policy which makes public sector working-class rental apartments available for long-time tenants to purchase at below-market rates. He also promised to support exempting minimum wages from income tax and to increase to 30 hours per week the amount of free childcare available to working-class families. In contrast, Labour opposed extending “right to buy” on the ground that it reduced available housing for lower-income Brits and supported “only” 25 hours of weekly free childcare.

Perhaps the most salient difference between the Tories and Labour was their stance on the UK’s membership in the European Union (EU). If reelected, Cameron promised to hold a referendum on whether to leave the EU. In contrast, Labour leader Ed Milliband campaigned against withdrawal.

The lessons here for Hillary Clinton seem abundantly clear. She should not fear moving left to head off progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders. Instead, she is likely to benefit from adopting a more populist tone in support of more widespread home ownership, tax relief for low-income Americans, and perhaps most importantly against the Trans Pacific Partnership – which can be fairly seen as a proto-European Union.

Trust is paramount. Luntz notes that pre-election, pollsters reported that just as many voters said that they would vote for Labour as the Conservatives. But he also points out that a significantly greater number of likely voters said they trusted Cameron more than Milliband. From this discrepancy, Luntz conjectures that when likely voters say they find one candidate significantly less honest that candidate may underperform. It is easy to see why a Republican operative would argue the criticality of a candidate’s credibility since this may be Hillary Clinton’s greatest weakness.

The latest CBS/New York Times poll offers positive and negative news for Clinton on this front. 80% of Democrats but only 48% of the electorate as a whole find her to be honest and trustworthy. While Luntz is a partisan Republican, his advice to Clinton is spot on. He recommends that in her upcoming testimony before Congress on Benghazi and her email practices while Secretary of State and after, she needs to present a wholly forthcoming and transparent demeanor.

Conclusion. Hillary Clinton and her supporters should view the surprisingly large Tory victory in the just-concluded British election with cautious optimism and go to school on it as well. Just as the British kept the party in power that has overseen a reasonably strong recovery, the American electorate is very likely to favor the Democratic Presidential nominee next year. To the extent a viable liberal challenger emerges, Clinton can probably move in a more populist direction without much risk of alienating other supporters. Finally a gentle suggestion: Clinton’s credibility received a needed boost when she replaced her former campaign manager oily Mark Penn with highly regarded progressive John Podesta. Now, she needs to lose hitman David Brock and fixer Lanny Davis. Every time one of them speaks for Clinton, their duplicity rubs off on her.

4 Responses to Luntz’s London Lessons for Hillary Clinton

Are you trying to completely lose your weekly interview with a representative from Media Matters? LOL.

I enjoy listening to the perspective from Media Matters, but I agree (and am disappointed) that occasionally they are not honest brokers and they just provide misleading spin. I hate to hear that, as it leads me to question everything else they say too.

BTW, my primary email address (less the +rm) is apparently blocked from posting in the forums. (I didn’t even try it for this post.) I previously created the new email address just so I could get my posts through.
I know your system is getting the posts from my primary email address because if I submit a post from Chrome & then again from Explorer, Explorer recognizes the attempted duplicate post. I think you might have tried once to allow my posts w/o moderation, but accidently permanently sent them to spam. Can you try to unblock my primary email addr? (Don’t post what was sent to spam though, as all have already been redone & successfully sent. Truthfully, the extra time allowed me to reread what I attempted to post and say things better. That’s the problem with posting w/o an edit button. Time is of the essence in responses to posts, but for best quality, one should always sleep on response before sending it.)

You can remove these last paragraphs, but I do wonder if any others are getting blocked w/o your knowledge. If so, they might not complain… but they might not ever come back either. Which reminds me, what ever happened to Dave/Dav and the other poster (name forgotten) from out of the U.S.? Jeff appeared just as Dave left, but his perspective is enough different that I don’t think they are one and the same. (Jeff isn’t obsessed with 911.)

Beginning ~10yrs ago, Moscow-based Kaspersky Labs tried2 damage rival competitor’s reputations by tricking their programs into classifying benign files as malicious. Per 2 former employees, some such attacks were ordered by

(Wednesday, Dec 13. 2017 12:50 AM)

KL’s co-founder Eugene Kaspersky, in part 2retaliate against rivals who he felt were aping his software rather than dev their own. KL’s engineers would take files like common critical drivers & inject bad code into them so they appeared infected. KL would then upload the doctored files anonymously2 VirusTotal flagging them as infected. Other AV engineers would then visit VT & create signatures that would flag all sim files. This often caused their AV programs 2quarantine perfectly good drivers from ppl’s computers causing system problems. http://goo.gl/fssZ1B

I guess it all boils down2 what 1 believes gives meaning to mankind’s life. To me, man will only have significance if he survives the Darwinian nature of the universe in the long term. In only a billion yrs, r sun will have brightened

(Tuesday, Dec 12. 2017 04:59 AM)

enough2 boil the oceans. If man is 2survive, it will only be cuz of his unique intelligence & ability2 fav reshape his enviro. There is nothing else particularly special about man, espec not his ability 2practice cut-throat Darwinistic behaviors. If the nat Darwinian path led2 immortal life, we would see evidence of an entire universe teaming w/life that has survived the ages. We don’t. So man must uniquely fight against the natural Darwinian order & instead build the strongest poss united society in which all individuals & earth’s life forms thrive.

4 Jeff – 1st of all u wrote that I think gov’t should buy everything 4 everybody. Obviously, that’s false. Now u write that I want gov’t 2 buy baseball tix 4 poor kids. I don’t oppose such legislation but my preference is that the City of Baltimore should condition use of its city by O’s upon an agreement by team 2 distribute free or low-cost tix to poor Baltimoreans.

For Hal – You do think the government should buy tickets to baseball games for the less fortunate. What’s the difference between that and a voucher to a restaurant? The point stands. You think the government has the authority to spend someone else’s money on whatever you deem appropriate.

For jeff linder – not everything. I don’t think the gov’t should provide people with yachts or vouchers to eat at restaurants & not at the expensive others since I would b subject 2 same taxes that I support. But it’s easier 2 attack arguments I don’t make.

The EIC has been much abused. Ppl that dont even work r propositioned by dishonest tax preparers who promise ppl they will get a tax refund if they just pay a fee. Self-Emp_Income is declared & the EIC is requested. By law, IRS pays

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 06:56 PM)

refunds quick, & only later it discovers the person never paid SEI taxes. The tax preparer & their fee r long gone; the person now owes IRS back the EIC. Woe 2the person that actually recvd need-based benefits (SSI or welfare) during the tax yr, as IRS records now show they had SEI they didnt declare. So welfare/SSI also want their money back, & usually such persons already at poverty level. This is the type of issue I tried 2expain2 Hal re accurate gas tax refunds. Although computerization slowly making this better, such programs rife w/fraud & bureaucratic messes.

Jeff isnt proposing a true GMI. The “earned income tax credit” he mentions already exists – IF u have low-pay job, then u may get a tax rebate. This also much like current Repub proposals 2req work 2get Medicaid. Prob socially

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 02:32 PM)

insulated ppl dont recog is there r many that have educational/mental/physical/economic-based issues such that they cant get/hold a job in today’s economy where workers compete w/3rd world. Sometimes ppl like Jeff will have eyes opened if something really bad happens in their lives. Gen working population is always so surprised how few services there really r when it is they that need help – but even then they often hang on2 dogma: Everybody but them (espec those dark “foreigners”) r cheaters/liars & that’s why there is nothing avail 4them when they need it.

Tweeden’s colleague John Phillips /groomed/ her 2release pic; Tweeden had no idea Phillips & Stone were hard right buddies. Arnold says Sean Hannity had wanted the photo since 2007 but she refused him & that Tweeden never wanted Franken fired. Arnold posted email purportedly showing Stone trying2 whip up story2 gossip columnists even b4 Tweeden story aired, though a pseudonym Russian nm was used & Tom has no proof email was Stone’s doing. DC & US will be vacant if we all r held 2such high stds over entire lifetime. We need Al in the Senate. http://goo.gl/oLWfA3

For halginsberg – The government spends about $1T in means tested programs. That’s about $3K per person. For illustration only:. GMI-Earned Income=Refund. That way there is no cost in benefits to working.

For halginsberg – That’s funny Hal. You think it’s someone else’s duty to spend money on things you think are important. I think you should spend your money on what you think is important. Re GMI it’s a workable solution as a replacement for all welfare programs.

For halginsberg – It’s not the federal government’s business to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads and a warm place to sleep Hal. If you know someone like in dire need why aren’t you helping them?
And yes, I support a guaranteed income.

For jeff linder – I asked u earlier how u propose to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads, and a warm place to sleep. I think u support a guaranteed minimum income. Is that correct?